I think there is a good point in saying people won't want a late term abortion because it is so difficult/painful/whatever. I mean, if they want to get rid of the child at that point, either they will have it adopted or abandon or kill it after it is born. Comparing it to a gallbladder surgery isn't helpful though, because it ignores the entire pro-life argument. That will only help you convince people that already don't think a 39 week fetus is that important/has some amount of independence from the body it is in. I mean, it's okay on an informal forum like this I guess but it wouldn't be a helpful argument for legislators. I think it makes the pro-choice stance look unfeeling, comparing a late-term fetus to an organ.

I know a lot about the Canadian medical system when it comes to abortion access, as I wrote my thesis on anti-choice legislation in Canada...past 20 weeks it's virtually impossible to get an abortion in Canada as there are so few providers willing to do late-term abortions, and those that will will only do them for catastrophic medical reasons. Honestly, past 16 weeks it's very hard to get an abortion, even in an urban area. As Shy Mox points out there are provinces that flout the law and have no abortion providers--for which they are fined yearly. And even in provinces where there is relatively good abortion access, if you are rural it is very, very difficult to access abortion services.

As to catering to anti-choicers in the language we choose...fork that shiitake. We can see what cowtowing to them has done, it's repealed almost all of the desperately fought for rights that came with Roe v Wade. The only thing that will change anti-choicers' minds is when women, again, start dying. You can see it starting already, with women in Texas going over the border to get off-label abortificants and suffering greatly for it.

I refuse to let anti-choicers frame the debate.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

so right now, in canada, there are no women getting late term abortions for shiitakes and giggles, despite there being technically no law prohibiting it. do you think that if abortions were more widely available, and there were more abortion providers, there would be women getting late term abortions for other than catastrophic medical reasons? i feel like this is an important point... so many people i know get stuck at the idea that abortions could be happening in the late second or third trimester just willy nilly if there were no legislation preventing it.

Sad that Canada has even worse abortion access than the US. It is pretty routine, though, that women have to go to other states to get later abortions in the US.

I don't think it's such an important point to prove that women wouldn't be getting late abortions willy nilly if they were legal and more readily available (even if it's so obviously true). I hope someday we can convince more people that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies and that they should be universally trusted to make decisions for their bodies without interference.

I'm generally of the opinion that a fetus becomes a baby when its mother says so. This is why it is as meaningful and normal to me to mourn a late miscarriage or a stillbirth with a woman as it is to sit with a woman awaiting an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy. I trust women's own experience and their own defining of that experience. I would like the law to do the same because it's the only humane thing to do and the only thing that allows women to approach parity.

Well, I don't think people would be having abortions "willy nilly" but I do think that people might want one for non-medical reasons in rare cases. Not sure if they would go through with it due to the difficulty of the procedure though, but I feel like there is the possibility in rare cases.

(edited for weird grammar)

Last edited by kimba on Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As to catering to anti-choicers in the language we choose...fork that shiitake. We can see what cowtowing to them has done, it's repealed almost all of the desperately fought for rights that came with Roe v Wade. The only thing that will change anti-choicers' minds is when women, again, start dying. You can see it starting already, with women in Texas going over the border to get off-label abortificants and suffering greatly for it.

so right now, in canada, there are no women getting late term abortions for shiitakes and giggles, despite there being technically no law prohibiting it. do you think that if abortions were more widely available, and there were more abortion providers, there would be women getting late term abortions for other than catastrophic medical reasons? i feel like this is an important point... so many people i know get stuck at the idea that abortions could be happening in the late second or third trimester just willy nilly if there were no legislation preventing it.

I very much doubt it. I think the gall bladder comparison is a good one, because you just can't get an invasive surgery electively. The level of specialty and risk are comparable at a certain point. Earlier abortions are elective because they're relatively easy to perform and safe. Late in the pregnancy it becomes way more risky and there's a point where it would be safer to induce labour rather than abort if physically everything is fine but the pregnancy needs to end, like in cases were the mother is mentally ill and can't be off her medication the entire pregnancy.

_________________I was really surprised the first time I saw a penis. After those banana tutorials, I was expecting something so different. -Tofulish

Well, I don't think people would be having abortions "willy nilly" but I do think that people might want one for non-medical reasons in rare cases. Not sure if they would go through with it due to the difficulty of the procedure though, but I feel like there is the possibility in rare cases.

It's not really a debate if you completely ignore what the other side is trying to say. Which is okay, if you don't want to debate it. Despite what it might look like from my comments, I am generally not a big fan of debating. However, I think I would have drifted toward pro-choice a lot faster if people had given actual consideration to my concerns instead of just writing me off as anti-choice.

It's not a matter of ignoring the other side, it's just already knowing that I disagree with aspects of the other side's argument - I am also not all that interested in debating the morality or lack thereof of abortion (which is why I'm just saying my piece and that's that - I don't care if I convince anybody, debating is for the purpose of convincing at least the audience, if not your opponent). We're not coming from the same philosophical place, so there's not a lot of room for conversation about the individual points (like "what about the poor almost-babies?" I don't care about the poor almost-babies, at least not anywhere near the level I care about the women carrying them, so it's not something I'm all that interested in spending a bunch of conversation time on).

I honestly don't think there's a method to convince anti-choice people to be pro-choice except praying for a change in philosophical orientation, which often happens to people after they actually experience needing an abortion, have a friend who needs an abortion, or they go through pregnancy and start to understand how important autonomy is when it comes to reproductive choice. (Although even then, many people still feel like "it was okay in MY case, but isn't in general" - not a change in orientation, just a belief in their exceptionalism, somehow their abortion or their friend's abortion was especially moral, but all other women are just hussies who deserve to be punished with unwanted children. I find this infuriating.) I don't think convincing by degrees is terribly useful and this is even more the case when it comes to quibbling over lines in the sand like legal time limits.

It's not really a debate if you completely ignore what the other side is trying to say. Which is okay, if you don't want to debate it. Despite what it might look like from my comments, I am generally not a big fan of debating. However, I think I would have drifted toward pro-choice a lot faster if people had given actual consideration to my concerns instead of just writing me off as anti-choice.

(By people, I mean people in general from my past, not current people on this forum.)

It's not a matter of ignoring the other side, it's just already knowing that I disagree with aspects of the other side's argument - I am also not all that interested in debating the morality or lack thereof of abortion (which is why I'm just saying my piece and that's that - I don't care if I convince anybody, debating is for the purpose of convincing at least the audience, if not your opponent).

Sad that Canada has even worse abortion access than the US. It is pretty routine, though, that women have to go to other states to get later abortions in the US.

I want to be very clear that while, yes, access is pretty shitty in Canada, the government will pay for women to get where they need to go to get their abortion and pay for the procedure itself. Where it gets problematic is for, say, a single mom who has to pay for childcare back home, and the government won't pay to bring a support person with you to wherever you have to go. So, it sucks in a lot of ways, yes, but it is really not comparable to what's happening in the U.S.

littlebird wrote:

so right now, in canada, there are no women getting late term abortions for shiitakes and giggles, despite there being technically no law prohibiting it. do you think that if abortions were more widely available, and there were more abortion providers, there would be women getting late term abortions for other than catastrophic medical reasons?

No. Absolutely not. For two important reasons. The first is that women are not morons. We do not get pregnant for the fun of it, go through morning sickness and weight gain and all the other wonderful things a lot of the women in this forum can speak to better than me just for the fun(?) of terminating after 6 months. I know that you know this, I am just trying to point out how ludicrous and frankly offensive of a claim it is.

The second is that doctors will not terminate after usually about 16 weeks, 20 max, if not for a very sound medical reason.

That being said, what the hell is an abortion for shiitakes and giggles? The term makes absolutely no sense and, again, paints women as frivolous beings incapable of depth. There is not a single (knowingly) pregnant person out there that doesn't understand that they have a potential person inside of them.

Now, if we are putting "really, desperately does not want to be a mother" in the category of "shiitakes and giggles" then I guess I'm pro shiitakes and giggles abortions. I know that there is no frivolous abortion.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

The knock on effect on Northern/Irish women travelling to the mainland for abortions is worth considering too http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... ml?via=rel Our first (up to 9wks) medical abortion clinic is opening in Belfast next week, but a 9 week limit doesn't leave people much time to make such big decisions.

That being said, what the hell is an abortion for shiitakes and giggles? The term makes absolutely no sense and, again, paints women as frivolous beings incapable of depth. There is not a single (knowingly) pregnant person out there that doesn't understand that they have a potential person inside of them.

Now, if we are putting "really, desperately does not want to be a mother" in the category of "shiitakes and giggles" then I guess I'm pro shiitakes and giggles abortions. I know that there is no frivolous abortion.

i just want to be clear that i don't think there is any such thing, just that it's something i hear pro-lifers insinuate... that if there were no limits, people would get abortions just because they could. that very idea seems ridiculous to me, and i wanted to know if there were any good data on late term abortions and why people get them. the insinuation always seems to be that if someone wanted an abortion, they should have gotten one in the first trimester, and there aren't any good reasons to have abortions after viability.

The legal limit for elective abortion is 10 weeks here and no health insurance (state or private) covers the procedure. No medical abortion is available here. The surgical one costs about the legal minimum monthly wage here (the technical minimum wage is lower).

Many women don't even know they're pregnant by 10th week (and it's calculated since the last period, not the date of conception).

One of my biggest fears is that I might become pregnant and not notice it on time. But, what allows me to keep some peace of mind is the fact that I could travel to England. Yes, the flight, accommodation, operation, post-op care would be expensive, I might have to sell my kidney to pay for it, but England is the option I have if everything else fails.

Of course, in case of pregnancy, I will try to have an abortion as soon as possible. I definitely do not want to be pregnant a day more than I have to. I take measures so that it's zero days total, but, unfortunately, accidents happen.

The current limit for elective abortion in the UK means a lot for people in the rest of Europe, not just in the UK.

Personally, I am pro-choice for every woman, no matter how pregnant she is. I'm pro-choice for the same reason I'm vegan. Nobody has the right to use another sentient being's body without that being's consent. Nobody has the right to enslave another sentient being.

so right now, in canada, there are no women getting late term abortions for shiitakes and giggles, despite there being technically no law prohibiting it. do you think that if abortions were more widely available, and there were more abortion providers, there would be women getting late term abortions for other than catastrophic medical reasons?

No. Absolutely not. For two important reasons. The first is that women are not morons. We do not get pregnant for the fun of it, go through morning sickness and weight gain and all the other wonderful things a lot of the women in this forum can speak to better than me just for the fun(?) of terminating after 6 months. I know that you know this, I am just trying to point out how ludicrous and frankly offensive of a claim it is.

The second is that doctors will not terminate after usually about 16 weeks, 20 max, if not for a very sound medical reason.

That being said, what the hell is an abortion for shiitakes and giggles? The term makes absolutely no sense and, again, paints women as frivolous beings incapable of depth. There is not a single (knowingly) pregnant person out there that doesn't understand that they have a potential person inside of them.

Now, if we are putting "really, desperately does not want to be a mother" in the category of "shiitakes and giggles" then I guess I'm pro shiitakes and giggles abortions. I know that there is no frivolous abortion.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

That being said, what the hell is an abortion for shiitakes and giggles? The term makes absolutely no sense and, again, paints women as frivolous beings incapable of depth. There is not a single (knowingly) pregnant person out there that doesn't understand that they have a potential person inside of them.

Now, if we are putting "really, desperately does not want to be a mother" in the category of "shiitakes and giggles" then I guess I'm pro shiitakes and giggles abortions. I know that there is no frivolous abortion.

i just want to be clear that i don't think there is any such thing, just that it's something i hear pro-lifers insinuate... that if there were no limits, people would get abortions just because they could. that very idea seems ridiculous to me, and i wanted to know if there were any good data on late term abortions and why people get them. the insinuation always seems to be that if someone wanted an abortion, they should have gotten one in the first trimester, and there aren't any good reasons to have abortions after viability.

The organized pro-life movement often lies. In addition, many of the US groups are also anti-birth control. This is not about "protecting babies" but is about protecting a worldview, a view of the place of women in that world, and what "family" means.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

I live in the world of the real so I know that in the grand of US of A, 88% of all abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. So, why do some women wait? The National Abortion Federation says:

Later Abortions

The earlier an abortion is provided the safer it is, because earlier abortions are less complicated. Therefore, it is important that women who decide to get abortions can do so without unnecessary delays. In fact, 88% of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12-13 weeks after the last menstrual period (LMP). Sometimes, however, women have compelling reasons to obtain abortions in later weeks.

Undiagnosed Pregnancy

Some women do not recognize that they are pregnant until the pregnancy is well advanced. Examples might include:

women who menstruate irregularly or not at all due to illness, medication, or strenuous athletic activity; women who believe their absent periods reflect the onset of menopause; women with normally light periods, who mistake spotting that occurs in early pregnancy for menstruation; women who believe they cannot become pregnant because they are nursing babies or undergoing medical treatment; women whose pregnancies are initially - sometimes repeatedly - misdiagnosed by physicians or other practitioners.

Medical Complications

Like anyone else in the population, pregnant women are susceptible to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, severe depression, addictions, and other serious health problems. Surgery, X-rays, chemotherapy, or other treatment vital to a woman's health or life may come to a halt once the pregnancy is discovered. A woman might choose abortion if a continued pregnancy would worsen her condition and/or threaten her life, or if she requires further treatments that may damage a developing fetus.

Severe Fetal Abnormalities

When a woman learns from the results of prenatal testing that a fetus has severe abnormalities, such as an undeveloped brain, a severe metabolic disorder, or no working kidney, she may wish to end the pregnancy rather than give birth to a child who will suffer and die in infancy or who will have severe disabilities. Unfortunately, the results of amniocentesis, one of the most important prenatal diagnostic tests, are generally not available until the 15th or 16th week of pregnancy, thus delaying the abortion decision.

Tragic Events

A pregnancy may have been planned and very much wanted - until tragedy strikes. For example, the diagnosis of some debilitating disease, a car accident, a job loss, or a natural disaster might lead a woman to decide this is the wrong time to have a baby and to choose abortion, even if the pregnancy has advanced past the first trimester.

Teens at Special Risk

Nearly one-third of all abortions after 12 weeks are obtained by teenagers. Teens face not only state regulatory hurdles, but also delays in recognizing that they are pregnant and taking decisive action. For example, they may:

understand little about how their bodies work and therefore may not recognize signs of pregnancy; become pregnant before they have begun to menstruate or before their menstrual periods are regular, so they don't have the signal of a missed period; believe a variety of myths, such as "You can't get pregnant the first time"; keep rape or sexual abuse a secret, denying the possibility of pregnancy.

When such young women do realize they are pregnant, they may panic, fearing their parents will never forgive them or that their parents will force them out of the house. They may hide the pregnancy in secret shame, or spend weeks wishing and hoping it isn't true, or that it will go away. Of course, when the pregnancy does not go away, the realities of the situation gradually become evident.

Another factor in teenagers' delay is that few are experienced in using the health care system. They may not know where to go for a pregnancy test, or they may fear that they cannot speak in confidence to a school counselor or nurse for assistance or a referral.

Parental Notification or Consent

Even further delays are introduced by states that require abortion providers to notify or obtain consent from a minor's parents before proceeding with an abortion. While most teens do tell a trusted adult, those faced with an abusive or absent parent are left with only two choices. They must either: petition a state court and convince a judge that they are competent to make this decision or that an abortion is in their best interest; or arrange an abortion in a state without such restrictions, raise extra money, and travel to the out-of-state facility.Clearly either choice can tax the resources of a teenager, and can create delays that might easily push the abortion past the first trimester.

Lack of Money

In one study of women who were having an abortion at 16 or more weeks, a substantial percentage said the delay occurred because they needed time to raise money.1 Women who depend on the federal government to provide their health insurance coverage must pay for abortion services separately; they may receive Medicaid funding for other medical services, but the federal government and most states have prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for almost all abortions.

In addition, as the pregnancy advances, abortions have a higher risk of complications, require specialized skill from the physician, increased nursing care, and more medications. Therefore, they are more expensive. For a woman who has no savings, gathering enough money can take time and delay her abortion by weeks.

Physician Shortage

Most abortion providers are concentrated in large cities. Today, 88% of all counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider, and 97% of rural counties have none.

In several states, women in need of abortion care must travel hundreds of miles to reach the nearest provider. Women are often delayed many days or weeks as they arrange transportation, time off from work, and save additional money for travel and lodging costs.

Waiting Period Requirements

Some states require women to wait anywhere from 8 to 27 hours between their first appointment and when the abortion procedure can be provided. These laws can further delay the abortion. For example, a teenager may wait for a time when her absence from school will be less obvious. If a woman must schedule two separate appointments, she may face more delays as she arranges for time off work or school to make two long-distance trips.

Third Trimester AbortionsDespite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances. Fewer than 2% of abortions are provided at 21 weeks or after, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy. Very few abortions are provided in the third trimester, and they are generally limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

Incidence of Late Term Abortions The Canadian Medical Association's abortion policy defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation (Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 1988). 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation. These are considered late term abortions.

Quote:

A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics Canada, 2003; http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html#facts). Many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation. In 1998 an American Doctor, George Tiller, opposed efforts to ban late term abortions in Kansas, using “statistics and photos of catastrophic pregnancies he had aborted.” The images showed fetuses with missing skulls or spinal cords, and in one case twins fused into a single body (Dave Ranney, “Tiller: Abortion Bill an Insult to Women,” Wichita Eagle, April 11, 1998, and Colleen McCain and Dave Ranney, “Five Kansas Families share Deeply Personal Stories,” Wichita Eagle, April 19, 1998). Those opposed to abortion rights have portrayed women as having late term abortions out of "selfish convenience" or because they "suddenly can't get into a bathing suit." This misrepresentation of women’s decision making with regard to abortion is always inaccurate, but especially so in cases of late term abortion. Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

Incidence of Late Term Abortions The Canadian Medical Association's abortion policy defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation (Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 1988). 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation. These are considered late term abortions.

Quote:

A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics Canada, 2003; http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html#facts). Many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation. In 1998 an American Doctor, George Tiller, opposed efforts to ban late term abortions in Kansas, using “statistics and photos of catastrophic pregnancies he had aborted.” The images showed fetuses with missing skulls or spinal cords, and in one case twins fused into a single body (Dave Ranney, “Tiller: Abortion Bill an Insult to Women,” Wichita Eagle, April 11, 1998, and Colleen McCain and Dave Ranney, “Five Kansas Families share Deeply Personal Stories,” Wichita Eagle, April 19, 1998). Those opposed to abortion rights have portrayed women as having late term abortions out of "selfish convenience" or because they "suddenly can't get into a bathing suit." This misrepresentation of women’s decision making with regard to abortion is always inaccurate, but especially so in cases of late term abortion. Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy.

That last part is important because I can tell you that being told at 20+ weeks that there is even a substantial chance that your child will be born with a chromosomal disorder is terrifying and tragic and horrible. That's about when they check the major organs for abnormalities.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

I keep typing and erasing, but j-dub (& others) have nailed a lot of what I want to say.Once you start legislating appropriate reasons for abortion, you're denying a woman's autonomy and her ability to make good choices for herself/her family. That means you're not pro choice, in my book.Harsh? Consider the fact that creeping, "reasonable" restrictions are what make getting an abortion in the. US a potential nightmare. Sure, abortion is legal if you can go to a special clinic that may be far from your home, face off with protesters who want to make you feel like shiitake, listen to scary health warnings that are disproportionate to the actual medical risk of the procedure, all of this likely while you're separated from your partner or support person/people.The only thing the middle ground has done in the abortion debate is fork women over.

Once you start legislating appropriate reasons for abortion, you're denying a woman's autonomy and her ability to make good choices for herself/her family. That means you're not pro choice, in my book.

This is getting away from the original topic though, which was about time limits rather than reasons. I'm well aware that some pro-life voices are calling for restrictions around what constitutes a legally valid reason for abortion, but most people who are seeking a moderate reduction in the time limit are not in my experience. To be completely honest I do find the idea of abortion simply because a preganancy is unwanted distasteful, but to me being pro-choice means I will always defend the right of women to choose this option even though I don't like it personally. Kind of like free speech - I might not like what some people have to say but I'd defend their right to say it.

Olives wrote:

The only thing the middle ground has done in the abortion debate is fork women over.

Maybe that's because some pro-choice voices in the debate aren't helping the cause? In this thread I respectfully made a few points folk didn't agree with, which is OK obviously, but was then effectively accussed on wanting to deny abortion to rape victims by someone who had their facts completely wrong, which made me rather annoyed.

To be completely honest I do find the idea of abortion simply because a preganancy is unwanted distasteful, but to me being pro-choice means I will always defend the right of women to choose this option even though I don't like it personally. Kind of like free speech - I might not like what some people have to say but I'd defend their right to say it.

But if you call yourself pro-choice and are defending the right of women to choose this option then you don't get to set a time limit. It doesn't matter what you find distasteful which is sort of a funny word to use for it. Check your prejudices before you wish to legislate to others.

Women should be able to choose at 30 weeks what they want to do with their bodies no matter what. Ain't no caveat in there for me. Vantine hit is square on the head in one of her links. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life and everything to do with keeping women in their place. If we were concerned with the sanctity of life in the US it would be an entirely different country.